Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 149 posts

Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions

#111

Post by cf498 »

maceurt wrote: post #107
ergothus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense. This is s huge point, and not just in drug convictions. If someone us poor and gets a warrant on the for unpaid parking fines, that is used in any public debate about them to show they are of low moral character. Reverse the issue and executives that settled charges…

I think people are more against criminals, because they go against the rules of society. The norms and rules of society are more important and mean more than most of the actual crimes. Me stealing $5 from someone is not going to do much harm, but people will want to punished not for the crime necessarily, instead for breaking the rules that bind us together and make us civil. The only thing that separates savages fro…

The rules of society can be absolutely abhorrent. A savage act that is legal doesnt become anymore civilized by being the majority opinion of society.

Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions

#112

Post by vondur »

sdegutis wrote: post #42
Agustus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem in hiring criminals is that they have committed a crime. Once they are brought to justice and sentenced, there is no real rehabilitation program, why we have such a high recidivism rate in the states. The best example of this is sexual predator label, if our society honestly believed they had been redeemed they would not need the label. The plan should be how can we get people who have been convicted to f…

> if our society honestly believed they had been redeemed they would not need the label That assumes that "society" is correctly and fully informed on the issue. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rate compared to other crimes. Plus it is a diverse category with many different types of situations all lumped into the same connotation in people's minds.

I’ve heard in certain cases that people who’ve been caught urinating in public have been charged as sex offenders. Surely that’s not what these laws were intended to punish.

Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions

#113

Post by zeroname »

maceurt wrote: post #107
ergothus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense. This is s huge point, and not just in drug convictions. If someone us poor and gets a warrant on the for unpaid parking fines, that is used in any public debate about them to show they are of low moral character. Reverse the issue and executives that settled charges…

I think people are more against criminals, because they go against the rules of society. The norms and rules of society are more important and mean more than most of the actual crimes. Me stealing $5 from someone is not going to do much harm, but people will want to punished not for the crime necessarily, instead for breaking the rules that bind us together and make us civil. The only thing that separates savages fro…

> The only thing that separates savages from the civil are the laws and rules of a society, if you break those rules you are not just doing the moral harm in breaking the rule, but doing harm against the society as a whole.

Nonsense! You're making exactly the mistake of confusing laws with morals, but many laws are deeply immoral, even when they reflect the "rules and norms" of a society.

Homosexuality used to be criminalized. Interracial sexual relations used to be criminalized. Contraception used to be criminalized. In all these case, that was based on the "rules and norms" of society. Has moving on from those "rules and norms" harmed our society? Have the individuals prosecuted under those laws harmed our society? I dare say no.

Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions

#114

Post by sdegutis »

vondur wrote: post #112
sdegutis wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if our society honestly believed they had been redeemed they would not need the label That assumes that "society" is correctly and fully informed on the issue. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rate compared to other crimes. Plus it is a diverse category with many different types of situations all lumped into the same connotation in people's minds.

I’ve heard in certain cases that people who’ve been caught urinating in public have been charged as sex offenders. Surely that’s not what these laws were intended to punish.

The three main things people seem to think of when they think "sex offender" is (1) an 18 year old slept with his 16 year old girlfriend (2) urinating in public and (3) child molester or rapist. There's a lot more situations, and the research shows that they all need to be handled differently, and that the current laws are much less effective than ones actually geared towards rehabilitation would be, at keeping our neighborhoods safe.

Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions

#115

Post by vkou »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #108
benrbray wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starting a family before the age of 25 is an example of GOOD decision-making??

In many cases, yes. Why would it be unconditionally bad?

Because unlike a marriage, buying a house, or moving to the big city, having kids is a colossal life decision, with life-changing consequences that you can't reverse.

You can divorce, sell your house, file for bankruptcy, or move back to your parents' basement, but you can't unhave children after having them. You can't go on a break from your children, even to take care of your own physical, mental, or economic health.

Most people at 25 don't have any of that shit figured out yet, and in the modern day and age, they don't have the support network of grandparents, that prior generations had.

Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions

#116

Post by bunderbunder »

stevehawk wrote: post #102
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's why I just drink cider now. Hard to find quality ones, but when I do they don't involve getting punched in the face with hops.

I live in a tiny town with a surprisingly popular brewery with ~8-10 beers on tap. IPAs. Every. Damn. One. Of. Them. And my local beer shop switched distributors so now I can't get my preferred beer (Prairie Bomb!).

Might as well continue this tangent. I haven't lost nearly enough karma on it yet. :)

I think that, if you're going to be a very small brewery that has that many different beers, they basically have to all be IPAs. The high alcohol content will help make the beer more resistant to going stale, and the hoppiness will cover all the flaws and consistency issues that you're very likely to have if your brewmaster is spreading themself that thin. By contrast, if you're making something like a helles lager, any problems you have with finicky things like the mash or the primary fermentation will to have nowhere to hide.

Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions

#117

Post by antisthenes »

ergothus wrote: post #93
clarkmoody wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Main problems I see are one step deeper: - Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense. This is a deep cultural problem, and I blame compulsory state schooling for exacerbating the issue of blindly trusting the government. Deference to arbitrary authority is drilled into our young minds over many formative years.…

> Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense. This is s huge point, and not just in drug convictions. If someone us poor and gets a warrant on the for unpaid parking fines, that is used in any public debate about them to show they are of low moral character. Reverse the issue and executives that settled charges…

This whole thing is nothing more than just world fallacy.

Instead of looking at individual circumstances, people falsely assume (backwards logic) that bad things could have only happened to bad people (e.g. convictions) are dead set on revising their view of an event (well, if it happened, they must have deserved it!)

> If the US wants to truly embrace the ideals of free speech, then we must also accept that there will be actions that are immoral but legal.

And illegal, but moral.

Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions

#118

Post by WalterBright »

reefoctopus wrote: post #75
paulsutter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the low bar to litigation in the US. Employers are afraid hiring a person with a criminal record because if even the slightest problem occurs, they’ll be sued because they “should have known they hired a convict” and a jury will rule against them. I don’t know how this can be solved EDIT: It would not cause a lawsuit directly, but it would harm your defense in any lawsuit, which could increase the chan…

Do you have any evidence to support this? I’ve never heard of anybody being sued for that reason.

http://law.slu.edu/sites/default/files/Journals/stacy_hickox...

Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions

#119

Post by clairity »

clarkmoody wrote: post #91
mabbo wrote: post #15

> "For too many who call Seattle home, a misdemeanour marijuana conviction or charge has created barriers to opportunity - good jobs, housing, loans and education," she said. The problem isn't the marijuana convictions, the problem is a society that believes people with criminal records can and should have their entire lives ruined for it. It's a society that doesn't believe in rehabilitation, just "good people" and…

Main problems I see are one step deeper: - Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense. This is a deep cultural problem, and I blame compulsory state schooling for exacerbating the issue of blindly trusting the government. Deference to arbitrary authority is drilled into our young minds over many formative years.…

> 'Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense.'

yes, people do take that mental shortcut from time to time, but it's because the legal system is supposed to reflect our collective moral code. when it doesn't, we should fix the legal code to match.

but listening to the kavanaugh hearing yesterday, it looks like things will get worse before they get better. kavanaugh was unfortunately partisan in his rebuttal, but the appalling part is that no one--especially not politicians--is discussing partisanship as a legitimate reason for disqualification. no matter your politics, you do not want partisanship in the courts.

> "I blame compulsory state schooling for exacerbating the issue of blindly trusting the government"

this is too simplistically ideological. are you really completely against patriotism? while schools do contribute to teaching deference, it's because communities believe in living together harmoniously and benefit from such social norms.

what we really need is to apply better incentives to the legal system, which has long been insulated from popular influence due to the danger of partisanship mentioned above. as in the current medical system, lawyers make more money from increased amounts of conflict and more complicated laws. we need to flip that around so that the legal system makes a living form simplifying the legal system and reducing conflict.

and more to the point, we need to realize that there is no "law-abiding citizen". we all break the law from time to time and it doesn't mean we're all criminals. if anything, we need to address rampant cheating in schools, because that's disturbingly accepted shortcut to success. let's hold each other to a higher, more honorable standard.

Post reply on HN